BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.488 of 2018

Date of Instt. 27.11.2018

Date of Decision:14.07.2022

Darshan Kaur wife of Dayal Singh, resident of Village Sarhali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar (now deceased) through her L. Rs:

1.       Diyal Singh (husband)

2.       Sarabjit Singh (son)

3.       Bikramjit Singh (son)

4.       Sukhwinder Kaur (daughter)

5.       Manjit Kaur (daughter)

          All residents of Village Sarhali, Tehsil Phillaur, District Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1.       Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company, 983, Jalandhar Cantt, Jandiala Road, Civil Line, Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Chola Mandlam MS General Insurance Company, SCO 2463-2464, Second Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, through its Claim Manager.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before:        Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj             (President)

                   Smt. Jyotsna                            (Member)

                   Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon       (Member)   

Present:       Sh. Vivek Jain, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.

                   Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.1 and 2.

Order

Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)

1.                The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is owner of vehicle bearing No.PB08DS-1388 i.e. Maruti Swift Dezire and the same has been insured from OP vide policy No.3362/01424944/000/00, customer code-100967958758 dated 25.10.2017. The said insurance policy is for the period from 25.10.2017 to 24.10.2018. Unfortunately the vehicle of complainant met with an accident on 06.11.2017 at Jalandhar to Shahkot Road and at that time the vehicle of complainant is duly insured with OP. Thereafter complainant filed a insurance claim to OP vide claim No.3362367070 and on the said claim OP surveyor issued one letter to the complainant seeking her signature and ID Proof for settlement of claim and same was duly supplied to the surveyor. Thereafter complainant many times visited to the office of surveyor, who always told to the complainant that her settlement case is pending in the head office and payment will be made shortly. The complainant also provided bank account number to the surveyor but no amount of claim has ever been paid to the complainant. The complainant paid Rs.1,36,459/- for the vehicle repaired and it is the duty of OP to pay back the said amount to the complainant but till date no amount has been paid by OP to the complainant. The complainant is an old lady and due to accident and further harassment on the part of the OPs, complainant suffered great mental tension as well as financial loss and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,36,459/- with regard to the repair bill and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- alongwith interest 18% till final realization and Rs.7500/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs, who filed reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OPs No.1 and 2 by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Commission and hence is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OPs and the same is liable to be dismissed. The claim of the complainant has treated as ‘No Claim’ by the OPs No.1 and 2 as the complainant has failed to provide the certain document i.e. claim form & signature ID Proof of the complainant to the OPs, even the letter dated 28.11.2017, 05.12.2017 and 13.12.2017 were sent to complainant by the surveyor of the OPs. Moreover, as per survey report date of loss was 21.11.2017 at Sarhali, but the complainant disclose the accident date as 06.11.2017 in the present complaint by making concealment of the actual date of loss. So, no cause of action has arose against the OPs No.1 and 2 to file the present complaint. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed in the light of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is further averred that the complainant has not come before this Commission with clean hands. The complainant is himself guilty of misrepresentation and suppression of material facts. It is the complainant who herself failed to supply the certain document to the OP intentionally. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is stopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the present complaint. The claim of the complainant has declared as “No Claim” due to own act and conduct of the complainant as he failed to provide the requisite documents to answering OPs required for processing of the claim. So, the complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefits of its own wrong. The present complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary party. On merits, the factum with regard to insurance of the vehicle is admitted and it is admitted that the complainant filed an insurance claim, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.

3.                Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.

4.                In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.         

5.                We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.

6.                The complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing No.PB08-DS-1388 as per RC Ex.C-12. The vehicle was insured from the OP on 25.10.2017, vide insurance policy Ex.C-1. This insurance was valid from 25.10.2017 to midnight 24.10.2018. It has been alleged that the vehicle met with an accident on 06.11.2017 and the complainant filed insurance claim to OP. On the claim, the Surveyor was appointed, who had sought the ID Proof and signatures of the complainant for the settlement of the claim. The complainant has spent Rs.1,36,459/- for the repair of the vehicle. The detail of the expenditure has been proved by the complainant, vide the bills Ex.C-3 to Ex.C-7. The complainant has alleged that the OP has not made the payment for the repair of insured vehicle, which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. All the documents have already been given to the OP. Even the Surveyor has mentioned this fact in his report, but he has not given report as per the damage caused to the vehicle due to the accident. The OPs have wrongly declared the claim of the complainant as ‘no claim’.

7.                The contention of the complainant is that all the documents were supplied to the OPs and wrong facts have been agitated that the documents were not supplied, but this contention is not tenable as the documents relied upon by the complainant Ex.C-2 and the documents relied upon by the OP Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3, which are the letters, written to the complainant on different dates i.e. 28.11.2017, 05.12.2017 and 13.12.2017 vide which the claimant i.e. complainant has been asked to furnish claim form duly singed and fulfilled and the signatures, ID Proof of the complainant and there is a reference of the reminders given to the complainant on different dates. There is no reply of the complainant showing that she has ever informed the OPs that the documents allegedly demanded by the OP have already been supplied to the OPs. The complainant has referred the surveyor report Ex.OP-4 in which it has been mentioned that the documents which were enclosed included claim form also, but at the same time the complainant is disputing the report of the Surveyor. The letters Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and Ex.C-2 show that the signatures, ID proof of the complainant were demanded by the OPs, but the same have not been proved to have sent to the OP. In such circumstances, the LRs of the complainant are directed to produce the documents which was required to the OPs within 15 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order and then the OPs will settle the claim of the complainant on the basis of these documents within 15 days from the date of receipt of the documents, failing which the OPs will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant. It is further ordered that if the LRs of the complainant are not satisfied with the settlement of the claim made by the OPs, then they are at liberty to file a fresh complaint. Original documents submitted alongwith the complaint be returned to the LRs  of the complainant for onward submission of the same to OPs for the settlement of the claim. Thus, this complaint is disposed of. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8.                Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated          Jaswant Singh Dhillon    Jyotsna               Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj     

14.07.2022         Member                          Member           President